This review article provides a critical review of studies assessing the effects of the health of infants, children abused. During the last decades, a large amount of studies and literature reviews on the consequences of child sexual abuse has been appeared. Child abuse and neglect, is the extent to which society is not well known, most of the times that are hidden, many more victims does not mention in a public health problem. World Health Organization, children's health, adversely affects the physical or psychosocial development, an adult, knowingly or unknowingly, in the community or by the government accepts all the same behavior as child abuse. Abused and neglected child reaches very few therapeutic institutions. Generally, the cases remain hidden in the family. If the situation was brought in the emergency department is often heavy, life-threatening complications. Key Words: Sexual abuse, child abuse, prevention, depression, sexualized behavior.
Objectives: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores >= 10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Study Design and Setting: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. Results: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 >= 10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 >= 14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 >= 14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). Conclusion: PHQ-9 >= 10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies. ; Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) KRS-134297 PCG155468 PJT-162206 Fonds de recherche du Quebec -Sante (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships FRQS Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust Hotchkiss Brain Institute Alberta Innovates Health Solutions Canada Research Chair in Neurological Health Services Research AIHS Population Health Investigator Award Department of Education (NIDRR) H133B080025 National Multiple Sclerosis Society MB 0008 Lundbeck International Tehran University of Medical Sciences M-288 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) THC-135234 Crohn's and Colitis Canada Bingham Chair in Gastroenterology Waugh Family Chair in Multiple Sclerosis UK Department for International Development 201446 Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems: University of Washington H133N060033 Baylor College of Medicine H133N060003 University of Michigan System H133N060032 Grand Challenges Canada 0087-04 United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R24MH071604 R34 MH072925 K02 MH65919 P30 DK50456 R24 MH56858 RO1-MH069666 R24 MH071604 MH014592-38 MH103210 United States Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Disease Control & Prevention - USA R49 CE002093 Spanish Ministry of Health's Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias) 97/1184 US National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research RO1 HD39415 Federal Ministry of Education & Research (BMBF) 01GY1150 University of Technology Sydney Duke Global Health Institute 453-0751 Macao (SAR) Government, through the University of Macau RSKTO grants MYRG-2014-111 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) AID-DFD A-00-08-00308 UK National Institute for Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme RP-PG0606-1142 Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT) CB-2009133923-H National Health Research Institutes - Taiwan NHRI-EX97-9706PI Reitoria de Pesquisa da Universidade de Sao Paulo 09.1.01689.17.7 Banco Santander 10.1.01232.17.9 Pfizer medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany 121/2000 Research Manitoba Chair in Multiple Sclerosis Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Niigata Seiryo University Productivity Grants (PQ-CNPq-2) 301321/2016-7 Ministry of Health, Italy United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI) U10CA21661 U10CA180868 U10CA180822 U10CA37422 Pennsylvania Department of Health United Kingdom National Health Service Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI) K07 CA 093512 Lance Armstrong Foundation United States Department of Health & Human Services United States Health Resources & Service Administration (HRSA) R40MC07840 United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA T32 GM07356 United States Department of Health & Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality R36 HS018246 United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) TL1 RR024135 medical faculty, University of Leipzig Hunter Medical Research Institute Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) Mental Health Program 100.003.005 100.002.021 Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam Fund for Innovation and Competitiveness of the Chilean Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism, through the Millennium Scientific Initiative IS130005 Research Manitoba Chair
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.